CBJ Board Other Sports Thread: Part X

[Mayor Bee]

18/19 they have Oregon State (mediocre PAC12 team) and TCU (top 5/10 team recently)
20/21 Oregon
22/23 Notre Dame AND Texas

i mean, i can believe i'm defending OSU here...but sorry man, you can try to spin it any way you want, the OOC scheduling is more than solid...

That's who is currently scheduled; we'll see if those games actually get played.

Those SEC games were canceled for other reasons (not just "OMG a good team is coming up") - The UT series was canceled because the Big Ten is moving to a 9-game conference slate that year. I believe OSU will start off with a 4H/5A conference schedule in BOTH the first two years the 9-game conference schedule is implemented.

The UGA series is off because of the now-dead Pac-12/Big 10 series that would have taken place those years.

OSU specifically opted out of the first year of the P-12/B1G slate (2017) because they already had Oklahoma and North Carolina, and after that was granted they dropped the UNC series. Don't worry though; they'll play a murderer's row of Army and UNLV to cover for no Pac-12 and no UNC.

Ohio State still had an open spot in 2018 and 2019 to accommodate the Tennessee game and either another non-conference game or a 9th B1G game; they scrubbed the Tennessee series anyway, then replaced them with Florida Atlantic just a couple months ago. I may not be as up on college football as I once was, but I don't remember FAU being a B1G member.

Oh, and they still have an open spot for a 2018 non-conference game.

It's simple, Gene Smith wants at minimum 7 home games a year. The 9 conference games and potential Pac 12 / Big 10 agreement threw a wrench into that.

Outside of that, they pretty much always have a top 25 non-conference team and then a couple middling to good MAC schools. Look at the SEC. They almost ALL schedule FCS garbage the week before their rivalry games in November. It's a joke.

OSU in recent years: USC, Texas, Miami (FL), Virginia Tech, Cal (scheduled when Rodgers and Lynch were there), Washington.

Coming up: Oklahoma, TCU, Texas, Oregon, Notre Dame, Boston College.

I mean, honestly, if we're criticizing Ohio State's OOC schedule, we might as well criticize every team's OOC schedule. There's very few schools scheduling multiple "big time" non-conf games.

I believe that eveyrone's OOC schedule and scheduling practices are worth scrutiny if there's something to it. Baylor seems hellbent on following the old Kansas State model; in both cases they at least have tough in-conference games. Boise State was a joke out of conference and in-conference as well, which always gave me a laugh when they'd complain about being "overlooked".

Funny thing though...look at Tennessee in recent years. Out of conference they've played Notre Dame, Syracuse (when they were good), Miami (when they were unstoppable), Notre Dame again, Notre Dame yet again, Cal (when they were actually good and had guys like Desean Jackson), UCLA, Oregon (when they played for the title against Auburn), Oregon again, and have just wrapped up a home-and-home against Oklahoma. That's in addition to playing a conference schedule that's included an unbelievable number of national champions and BCS bowl game teams.

 

[Mayor Bee]

Because scheduling an FCS school at all is a joke if you are the best conference in America. Scheduling them the week before the rivalry games is just a buffer as a way to rest up and get a pseduo-bye week.

If anyone's OOC scheduling should be criticized it's Baylor.

OSU played a couple of FCS schools this year already.

Or was that was Maryland and Rutgers?

 

[DarkandStormy]

That's who is currently scheduled; we'll see if those games actually get played.



OSU specifically opted out of the first year of the P-12/B1G slate (2017) because they already had Oklahoma and North Carolina, and after that was granted they dropped the UNC series. Don't worry though; they'll play a murderer's row of Army and UNLV to cover for no Pac-12 and no UNC.

Ohio State still had an open spot in 2018 and 2019 to accommodate the Tennessee game and either another non-conference game or a 9th B1G game; they scrubbed the Tennessee series anyway, then replaced them with Florida Atlantic just a couple months ago. I may not be as up on college football as I once was, but I don't remember FAU being a B1G member.

Oh, and they still have an open spot for a 2018 non-conference game.



I believe that eveyrone's OOC schedule and scheduling practices are worth scrutiny if there's something to it. Baylor seems hellbent on following the old Kansas State model; in both cases they at least have tough in-conference games. Boise State was a joke out of conference and in-conference as well, which always gave me a laugh when they'd complain about being "overlooked".

Funny thing though...look at Tennessee in recent years. Out of conference they've played Notre Dame, Syracuse (when they were good), Miami (when they were unstoppable), Notre Dame again, Notre Dame yet again, Cal (when they were actually good and had guys like Desean Jackson), UCLA, Oregon (when they played for the title against Auburn), Oregon again, and have just wrapped up a home-and-home against Oklahoma. That's in addition to playing a conference schedule that's included an unbelievable number of national champions and BCS bowl game teams.

Yes, I missed that tough OOC slate of Montana, Cincinnati, BUffalo, and Middle Tennessee they scheduled. Woof. Or that year they played UCLA (who was 4-8), UAB, Northern Illinois, and Wyoming.

They haven't played Notre Dame or Miami in the last 8 years.

Almost every team in the country (outside of Baylor and Notre Dame's pseudo-conference schedule) does the EXACT same thing. They try to project a top 25 OOC opponent 6-8 years in advance, and then sprinkle in 2-3 average to crap teams. Why you are surprised that OSU is following this practice, which again, literally 98% of the rest of the NCAA is following, makes absolutely no sense. Just say you're a hater, it's much easier.

 

[Viqsi]

Yes, I missed that tough OOC slate of Montana, Cincinnati, BUffalo, and Middle Tennessee they scheduled. Woof. Or that year they played UCLA (who was 4-8), UAB, Northern Illinois, and Wyoming.

They haven't played Notre Dame or Miami in the last 8 years.

Almost every team in the country (outside of Baylor and Notre Dame's pseudo-conference schedule) does the EXACT same thing. They try to project a top 25 OOC opponent 6-8 years in advance, and then sprinkle in 2-3 average to crap teams. Why you are surprised that OSU is following this practice, which again, literally 98% of the rest of the NCAA is following, makes absolutely no sense. Just say you're a hater, it's much easier.

This is, admittedly, a rather stunning blind spot of MB's. Normally he's really, really good at looking at the wider picture and recognizing those sorts of general trends when they're happening, especially when there's historical precedent for same elsewhere. I'm not entirely sure why college football in particular somehow seems immune to or otherwise exempt from this.

That everybody does it doesn't necessarily make it OK, naturally, but that also doesn't justify singling out particular schools for the practice as though they're exclusively responsible.

 

[Mayor Bee]

Yes, I missed that tough OOC slate of Montana, Cincinnati, BUffalo, and Middle Tennessee they scheduled. Woof. Or that year they played UCLA (who was 4-8), UAB, Northern Illinois, and Wyoming.

They haven't played Notre Dame or Miami in the last 8 years.

Almost every team in the country (outside of Baylor and Notre Dame's pseudo-conference schedule) does the EXACT same thing. They try to project a top 25 OOC opponent 6-8 years in advance, and then sprinkle in 2-3 average to crap teams. Why you are surprised that OSU is following this practice, which again, literally 98% of the rest of the NCAA is following, makes absolutely no sense.

I'm not surprised that OSU is doing it. I'm more surprised that the practice is defended when the B1G as a whole has been marginally stronger than the Mountain West for the last decade. If an SEC West team wants to schedule crap while they're looking at playing LSU, Texas A&M, Alabama, Auburn, and the sudden resurgence of the Mississippi schools (plus the three SEC East opponents they'll draw), that's one thing. And if the SEC suddenly slumps to a bunch of bottom-feeders with two top teams like they did for most of the 1990s, they'll have no room to talk about schedule strength either.

Sure, most teams schedule like this. Most teams don't back out of playing tough non-conference opponents on a regular basis to replace them with complete garbage. Most teams know better than to churn through garbage, play one or two tough teams (as forced by being in-conference), then point fingers at everyone else's schedule strength. Boise State trying to defend their schedule by saying that they played as tough of non-conference schools as everyone else was hilarious, since they played basically no one of note in-conference.

Just say you're a hater, it's much easier.

Since I have graduated middle school in my life and don't listen to sports talk radio, I refuse to use that word.

 

[We Want Ten]

I really can't believe you all are still hammering away at this. ALL teams do this.

This is college football now.

 

[Mayor Bee]

This is, admittedly, a rather stunning blind spot of MB's. Normally he's really, really good at looking at the wider picture and recognizing those sorts of general trends when they're happening, especially when there's historical precedent for same elsewhere. I'm not entirely sure why college football in particular somehow seems immune to or otherwise exempt from this.

That everybody does it doesn't necessarily make it OK, naturally, but that also doesn't justify singling out particular schools for the practice as though they're exclusively responsible.

It's not about the non-conference scheduling, it's about the dropping of quality opponents and replacing them with junk.

If we're talking about overall schedule strength, in this specific year, it's particularly galling. Here's OSU's schedule to date:
Virginia Tech (4-5)
Hawaii (2-8)
Northern Illinois (7-3)
Indiana (4-5, 0-5 in conference)
Maryland (2-7)
Penn State (7-3)
Rutgers (3-6)
Minnesota (4-5)
Illinois (5-4)
TOTAL (38-46)

Penn State has beaten no one of consequence, but they did get destroyed by....Temple. Northern Illinois's best win is Toledo; they did lose to a 3-7 Boston College team.

Compare to #2 Alabama:
Wisconsin (8-2)
MTSU (4-5)
Louisiana-Monroe (1-8)
Ole Miss (7-3)
Georgia (6-3)
Arkansas (5-4)
Texas A&M (6-3)
Tennessee (5-4)
LSU (7-1)
Mississippi State (7-2)
TOTAL (56-35)

Yet we've heard the question all week of "Should a one-loss SEC team be ahead of an unbeaten B1G team?"

 

[Mayor Bee]

I really can't believe you all are still hammering away at this. ALL teams do this.

This is college football now.

All teams back out on tough future non-conference opponents and replace them with garbage, then point fingers at others? Tell me more.

 

[We Want Ten]

All teams back out on tough future non-conference opponents and replace them with garbage, then point fingers at others? Tell me more.

Why would OSU play anyone tougher than they need to? If they go undefeated they are almost a lock to make the playoffs.

 

[Mayor Bee]

Why would OSU play anyone tougher than they need to? If they go undefeated they are almost a lock to make the playoffs.

Ask TCU how well that "almost a lock" worked out for them last year.

 

[We Want Ten]

Also, I see no basis for your saying "All teams back out on tough future non-conference opponents and replace them with garbage, then point fingers at others? Tell me more.".

I wouldn't exactly call Tennessee or UNC tough to begin with, Georgia is a total crapshot.
http://buckeyextra.dispatch.com/content/stories/2011/11/22/ohio-state-tennessee-series-canceled.html
http://www.cleveland.com/osu/index.ssf/2014/08/ohio_state_drops_football_seri.html
http://collegefootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2012/05/31/future-georgia-ohio-state-series-canceled/

You will have to link me to the pointing fingers stuff so I can look at it, I have no idea what you are referring to.

 

[We Want Ten]

Ask TCU how well that "almost a lock" worked out for them last year.

Big ten has a championship game. Big 12 should get their act together.

OSU destroying Wisconsin solidified their position. If TCU had been given the chance for redemption against Baylor, maybe they would have had different fortunes.

On a scale of 1-10 about caring about OSU football, i'm like a 3, so please don't take this as a fervent defense, it just seems to me that this is how college football will be played given the playoff structure. If they add more teams to the playoffs, it might get better, but that would require me to spend more time thinking about it and I really don't want to.

 

[DarkandStormy]

Ask TCU how well that "almost a lock" worked out for them last year.

Did you read the part where he said undefeated or...

 

[Forepar]

It's not about the non-conference scheduling, it's about the dropping of quality opponents and replacing them with junk.

If we're talking about overall schedule strength, in this specific year, it's particularly galling. Here's OSU's schedule to date:
Virginia Tech (4-5)
Hawaii (2-8)
Northern Illinois (7-3)
Indiana (4-5, 0-5 in conference)
Maryland (2-7)
Penn State (7-3)
Rutgers (3-6)
Minnesota (4-5)
Illinois (5-4)
TOTAL (38-46)

Penn State has beaten no one of consequence, but they did get destroyed by....Temple. Northern Illinois's best win is Toledo; they did lose to a 3-7 Boston College team.

Compare to #2 Alabama:
Wisconsin (8-2)
MTSU (4-5)
Louisiana-Monroe (1-8)
Ole Miss (7-3)
Georgia (6-3)
Arkansas (5-4)
Texas A&M (6-3)
Tennessee (5-4)
LSU (7-1)
Mississippi State (7-2)
TOTAL (56-35)

Yet we've heard the question all week of "Should a one-loss SEC team be ahead of an unbeaten B1G team?"

Hold on, counting remaining two games for Alabama, CSU is an FCS team and Auburn is 5-5.
OSU's remaining 2 opponents are 17-3.
Not arguing OSU's is strong either, but the gap isn't nearly as big as your post suggests.
Further, some of the teams that Alabama has beaten may have decent records, but they were also FCS teams.

Wisconsin - solid but not best Big10 West team; we'll see when Iowa v. Badger game ends.

MTSU - Middle Tennessee State....middling conference USA team. with a couple of wins over FCS programs, not FBS schools.

Lousiana-Monroe - 1-9, barely an FBS program, has See above.

Ole Miss - ok, but losses to Memphis and Arkansas (same Arkansas that lost to Toledo).

Georgia - 6 wins (at time of your post) built on wins over UL-Monroe (see above), Southern (FCS), Kentucky and soon-to-be victim Georgia Southern.

Arkansas - loss to Toledo, at home. Other non-conference games were UTEP, Texas Tech (another loss) and UT-Martin (FCS). Granted, strong wins last 2 weeks, but an up-down team, not a powerhouse.

Texas A&M - Better...somewhat equivalent to Michigan or Penn State. Non-conference opponents ASU (good), Ball State (weaker MAC team), Nevada (double meh), and Western Carolina (FCS).

Tennessee - one of the better non-conference schedules in SEC, but partly due to Bowling Green being a stronger MAC team than expected. Oklahoma a strong game, but the perennial SEC junior member Western Carolina, with North Texas, does not make me quiver with excitement about UT's non-conference schedule.

LSU - After the past 2 weeks, the non-league schedule of McNeese St., Syracuse, E. Michigan and Western Kentucky starting to show. Loss to middling Arkansas team, at home, is a bad loss.

Mississippi St. - OCC games were Southern Miss, Northwestern St (FCS), Troy and Lousiana Tech. Have not beaten a ranked team. 'nuff said

Remaining schedule -

Charleston Southern - an FCS opponent, this late in the season? Granted a good record, but FCS nonetheless.

Auburn - Traditional rivalry game, OSU's Michigan, agreed throw out the records.

So Alabama's only quality OCC opponent was Wisconsin. Next year its Southern Cal (not as strong as when scheduled but still a recognized national program), with Western Kentucky, Kent State and Chattanooga as the other OCC games.


Not touting anyone's OCC schedule - just agreeing with those that suggest weak OCC scheduling, with one strong OCC game each year, seems the norm. This is true even amongst the SEC West teams. Just like everybody else. What may be different about the SEC is that some of the weak OCC games are played interspersed with league games (like Alabama vs Charleston Southern this week, and Chattanooga next year the week before the Auburn game). That seems odd, and skews the early season perceived strength of schedule, as most teams play their OCC cupcakes early. Also lets Alabama throttle back and prepare for rivalry game next week without using much in the emotional tank the Saturday before. Interesting scheduling strategy (not sarcastic, not even critical) just hadn't paid much attention to it.

There are few exceptions around the country to the OCC scheduling theory, but not many at the moment. No strong OCC schedules for the power teams in the SEC, or the Big 10 that I have seen, but didn't review every schedule game for game. The need for at least 7 home games and the perceived (if not real) rigors of regular conference schedule are in part the the cause, along with the need to be 12-0 or at worst 11-1 to get in the top 4.

This argument makes me wish for playoffs involving top 8 instead of top 4 even more than before. The "Big 5" conference champions would get automatic bids, another spot for a 2nd tier conference champion (include independents like ND in that mix), and then 2 at large bids (all teams from all conferences and independents in that mix). That way, if you win your Big 5 league, you are in. Risking a loss, or even 2, to top-tier programs early in the season doesn't matter as much. Every game of the league season still matters, and maybe we'd get better early-fall matchups (maybe not). At worst, we'd get one more weekend of playoff games.

And maybe that is coming - most non-league schedules are 5-8 years out, and in 2023, OSU has Boston College, Texas and Notre Dame scheduled as its 3 OCC games - that is respectable at worst. BC and Texas down this year, but historically strong programs that should be back on track by then. Alabama only has one game scheduled for 2018 and 2020, no others scheduled after 2017; probably waiting to see the lay of the land (which is also a smart but different move in my book).

Oh the joys of debating college football.

 

[DarkandStormy]

^Forepar, you missed the most important part of the debate which is...."SEC!"

 

[Forepar]

What is the SEC?

 

[Viqsi]

^Forepar, you missed the most important part of the debate which is...."SEC!"

Well, that and a total lack of faith in any of those upcoming games remaining on the schedule.


On the positive side, this particular topic always gives me something to point to any time someone presumes MB and I are in lockstep with eachother. (That and any baseball reference. I can't stand baseball. )

 

[Mayor Bee]

Not touting anyone's OCC schedule - just agreeing with those that suggest weak OCC scheduling, with one strong OCC game each year, seems the norm. This is true even amongst the SEC West teams. Just like everybody else. What may be different about the SEC is that some of the weak OCC games are played interspersed with league games (like Alabama vs Charleston Southern this week, and Chattanooga next year the week before the Auburn game). That seems odd, and skews the early season perceived strength of schedule, as most teams play their OCC cupcakes early. Also lets Alabama throttle back and prepare for rivalry game next week without using much in the emotional tank the Saturday before. Interesting scheduling strategy (not sarcastic, not even critical) just hadn't paid much attention to it.

There are few exceptions around the country to the OCC scheduling theory, but not many at the moment. No strong OCC schedules for the power teams in the SEC, or the Big 10 that I have seen, but didn't review every schedule game for game. The need for at least 7 home games and the perceived (if not real) rigors of regular conference schedule are in part the the cause, along with the need to be 12-0 or at worst 11-1 to get in the top 4.

Which is all well and good, and not my point of contention. I'm well aware of the fact that teams traditionally schedule weak non-conference opponents for a variety of reasons. My issue with OSU is, quite simply, limited to:
- They've backed out on multiple non-conference games against teams that look to be quality opponents, then replaced them with garbage, and
- They're also playing in a conference that is going through a historic low right now as far as caliber of play is concerned

If SEC schools were backing out of non-conference games on a semi-regular basis, I'd be blasting them as well. Perhaps more tempered because the SEC is in the tail end of a historic high, but I'll never pass up an opportunity to bag on another SEC school if I have the chance.

Also, keep in mind that Auburn missed out on the 2004 national championship game because of non-conference scheduling involving a backout. In that case, Bowling Green cancelled their game against Auburn to play Oklahoma instead (with an additional $125K payday); Auburn could only find The Citadel on such short notice, and the resulting ding to their strength of schedule rating is what kept them out of the title game.

This argument makes me wish for playoffs involving top 8 instead of top 4 even more than before. The "Big 5" conference champions would get automatic bids, another spot for a 2nd tier conference champion (include independents like ND in that mix), and then 2 at large bids (all teams from all conferences and independents in that mix). That way, if you win your Big 5 league, you are in. Risking a loss, or even 2, to top-tier programs early in the season doesn't matter as much. Every game of the league season still matters, and maybe we'd get better early-fall matchups (maybe not). At worst, we'd get one more weekend of playoff games.

And maybe that is coming - most non-league schedules are 5-8 years out, and in 2023, OSU has Boston College, Texas and Notre Dame scheduled as its 3 OCC games - that is respectable at worst. BC and Texas down this year, but historically strong programs that should be back on track by then. Alabama only has one game scheduled for 2018 and 2020, no others scheduled after 2017; probably waiting to see the lay of the land (which is also a smart but different move in my book).

Oh the joys of debating college football.

I'm more surprised we didn't see a 16-team playoff. All conference champions, stave off the lawsuits threatened by the small conferences, and fill out the rest with at-large bids. Play the first two rounds at the home team's stadium.

^Forepar, you missed the most important part of the debate which is...."SEC!"

If this were 1995, I'd be hammering SEC schools for complaining about strength of schedule considering how weak the conference was as a whole. And I'd also be questioning how anyone would dispute that the Big Ten was, at worst, the second-best conference in the land.

Times have changed. I don't expect the SEC high to continue for much longer, provided that certain conferences (B1G, namely) get their collective heads out of their ***** and fill out the conference depth a bit.

 

[Viqsi]

- They're also playing in a conference that is going through a historic low right now as far as caliber of play is concerned

The general consensus is that this ceased to be the case a few years ago and that the B1G is on the rebound back up.

 

[Fro]

WTF?

ProFootballTalk ‏@ProFootballTalk
Former Ravens DT Terrence Cody convicted of drug, dog and alligator charges (of course)

 

[DarkandStormy]

My issue with OSU is, quite simply, limited to:
- They've backed out on multiple non-conference games against teams that look to be quality opponents, then replaced them with garbage, and
- They're also playing in a conference that is going through a historic low right now as far as caliber of play is concerned

I don't know what to tell you. The potential "Pac 12 / Big 10" agreement looked like it was coming to fruition and they needed to clear space on their schedule. That fell through. The conference decided to go to 9 conference games, so they had to readjust to get at least 7 home games for the revenue.

They then went out and scheduled Notre Dame, Oregon, Texas, etc. coming up. They are still going to have top quality teams out of conference. Oklahoma series starts next season.

Just won the title and are about to have 3 teams in the top 8 (more than the ESS-EEE-CEE. Have had more teams in the top 25 than the SEC the last couple weeks. They're not down.

Also, keep in mind that Auburn missed out on the 2004 national championship game because of non-conference scheduling involving a backout. In that case, Bowling Green cancelled their game against Auburn to play Oklahoma instead (with an additional $125K payday); Auburn could only find The Citadel on such short notice, and the resulting ding to their strength of schedule rating is what kept them out of the title game.

Auburn missed out because everyone had pre-determined before that season they wanted to see USC and Oklahoma. They started out #1 and #2 and in the era of the BCS, teams typically didn't move down unless they lost.

 

[Fro]

Just won the title and are about to have 3 teams in the top 8 (more than the ESS-EEE-CEE. Have had more teams in the top 25 than the SEC the last couple weeks. They're not down.

the SEC is indeed down this year...there's a lot of mediocre there this year...

 

[Viqsi]

the SEC is indeed down this year...there's a lot of mediocre there this year...

"They're not down" was talking about the B1G, not the SEC.

 

[Fro]

"They're not down" was talking about the B1G, not the SEC.

oh ok...misread...I read that as "the B1G has xyz, more than the SEC and the SEC is not down"

 

[Mayor Bee]

Just won the title and are about to have 3 teams in the top 8 (more than the ESS-EEE-CEE. Have had more teams in the top 25 than the SEC the last couple weeks. They're not down.

Sure they're down. They might not have completely cratered like a couple years ago, but there's no question that the B1G is in (the tail end of) a historic low for the conference. Who knows though; if they add in a couple of quality coaches to boost some of the more mediocre programs, they could be right near the top again like it was 1995.

If you want to compare to the SEC, there's also the head-to-head matchups in bowl season that will have to be seen. That unbeaten Iowa team that looks so tough now got destroyed last year by a Tennessee team that's basically a bunch of freshmen and sophomores and was also missing their overall top player in AJ Johnson.

Auburn missed out because everyone had pre-determined before that season they wanted to see USC and Oklahoma. They started out #1 and #2 and in the era of the BCS, teams typically didn't move down unless they lost.

Even the computer polls had Auburn 3rd, largely on the basis of that one game.

And had the previous year's system been used, Auburn would have waltzed in. But that was all changed after 2003 to accommodate USC's crying over having been left out.